You know Daniel, I don't even know where to begin. Let's get this one out of the way first:
My (admittedly pompous) statement: At least I (with small exceptions) have the skill and pride to use my own words. You will notice that, while I have occasionally thrown in a pertinent quote here and there, I have never resorted to reprinting someone else's words.
and your response: Implying, I guess, that you know more about the law and can write better than Anthony Lewis.
Huh? That's not what that implies at all. My remark was not intended to in any way disparage Mr. Lewis. I may disagree with what Mr. Lewis has to say, but I would never claim to be a better writer than he is. My criticism was directed at you for simply "reprinting someone else's words" instead of using your own. I consider this to be intellectual laziness.
As for the body of your post, I'm sorry that others have insulted you in the past, but I really don't see what that has to do with me or our debate.
Now, some details:
>>Clinton corruptly failed to cooperate with the Grand Inquisitor Starr. Big deal.
With the exception of the addition of the word "corruptly," this is the exact same thing you have said in three consecutive posts. I have offered arguments to dispute this statement, but you have neither responded to them nor offered any points in support of this statement.
>> I wish you would join the esteemed Bill Vaughn in getting on with your own hateful life, Bob.
I don't know Bill Vaughn, and my life is anything but hateful.
>>I think you're a professional Clinton hater
I'm not even an amateur Clinton hater.
And some tidbits:
>>pompous... boo hoo... Clinton haters... know-it-all... pompous ass... loons... sanctimonious moralizers and know-it-all right wingers... crap... hateful... and of course:
>>You want to make earnest lectures, fine, but I don't see much point in anything beyond ridicule in response.
These are fine examples of why I accuse you of being incapable of carrying on rational debate.
But you know what? There are two things that tend to temper my opinion. The first is that Borzou (a person with whom I tend to disagree, but for whom I have a great deal of respect) spoke highly of you, and the second is the first of your own statements that you reprinted in this post:
>>It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment. But this has been a partisan witchhunt from the start. From the moment Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth went to see the judge they had gotten appointed and told him who they wanted for special prosecutor. If somebody gives me some indication of politicians of any stripe taking this "I swear to tell the truth" business seriously, I'll start taking this particular instance of "perjury" seriously. If this is a high crime, we may as well abolish the office. I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider.
This is, all things considered, and despite the fact that I disagree with parts of it, a reasonable, well written and substantive post. This proves to me that you are capable of making a rational statement. I still don't know if you can then defend a statement rationally; maybe that's the problem. Maybe you view all disagreement as a personal attack. For all I know, maybe a disproportionate number of the people who have disagreed with you have resorted to personal attack. Nonetheless, if you can do it once, you can do it again. So if you want to make a rational and relevant statement, I would certainly be willing to engage in some civilized debate with you. But until then, I'm just going to try my best to ignore you.
Sincerely,
BLT |
